Legal Opinion
In re the Estate of Sulzbacher
New York Surrogate's Court
Decided July 7, 1938PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Delehanty, S.
Construction is here required to determine to whom deceased referred when he made provision for his “ nephews and nieces.” A further question concerns the effect of a direction in the will that the individual executor should serve without compensation. This latter question will be first considered.
*2Paragraph sixth of the will says: “ I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint my brother, Harry Sulzbacher, and Bank of Manhattan Trust Company of No. 40 Wall Street, Manhattan, New York City, to be executors of and trustees under this my last will and testament, and I direct that…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Scott v. . GuernseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Prowitt v. . RodmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Matter of Accounting of MasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Utica City National Bank v. GunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Weeks v. . CornwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Estate of CarlisleNew York Surrogate's Court · 1989
- In re the Estate of ZinnNew York Surrogate's Court · 1946
- Allen v. DennieIdaho Court of Appeals · 1989
- In re the Estate of ClyveNew York Surrogate's Court · 1958
- In re the Estate of McHughNew York Supreme Court · 2006